Buddhist Philosophy in India and Ceylon c17.s2.1

c17.s2.1

On one point in special in the process of the working of action, we find an interesting divergence in the schools, on the precise mode of transmigration. Popular ideas attributed birth to the co-operation with the parents of an entity, the Gandharva,² representing in some vague way the soul which was to be born. Acting on this doctrine the Sammitiyas and Pubbaseliyas held that after death there was an intermediate state before rebirth, a view with which we may connect the opinion of both the Pubba- and Apara-seliyas that the embryo was immediately provided with a full sense apparatus.³ The Sarvāstivādins adhered to the view as regards all those to be reborn in the worlds of desire and matter as contrasted with those to be reborn in the world of non-matter, a distinction suggesting that the intermediate being must be treated as quasi-material, with a transporting (*ativāhika*) body, analogous to the subtle body of the Sāṃkhya. The Vaibhāṣikas seem to have accepted the intermediate being, supporting the view by the consideration that it is not always possible for the suitable rebirth to be obtained immediately on death.